Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

The risks really aren't as great as some people claim. Around 200 people got sick from raw milk/cheese in 2002 (last year i could find data for) most at risk are kids and immunocompromised. When you consider 48 million people in the US every year have some foodborne illness it seems foolish so many states regulate raw cheese/milk

And can you guess why only 200 or so people got sick? BECAUSE THE OTHERS DRANK PASTEURIZED MILK.Extrapolate how many more would get ill if everyone drank that sh*t.

Many more people got sick before Louis found his little trick. It's not foolish that something so simple as a little heat could prevent so much misery, and that's why states regulate dairy products. Why don't we stop immunizing children or let manufacturers of sleepwear use all the flammable materials they want? Let's put those hard metal dashboards and spikey spoked metal steering wheels back into cars again!

Before labeling something as "foolish", why not look into the history of why it exists?

It's dangerous, antiquarian, outmoded, anti-intellectual thinking which will only serve to get people killed.

I know I know I know: "B-B-BUT it's my body! I can do whatever I want. Freedom! 'Mur'ca" etc. etc.

Well this isn't just about YEWWW, or "the children," okay, asshat?

As we all know, there are some genuinely honest, reasonably intelligent people out there...who will swallow and believe anything they hear with the label "natural" or "breakthrough"...and they're not necessarily stupid...but they ARE very very stubborn about what they will and will not believe. And you CAN'T TELL THEM ANYTHING because you call them 'Mom' or 'Dad' or 'Auntie' or 'Uncle' or 'Grandma' or 'Gramps.'

People that you care about will die....

because YOU can't let go of a patently stupid, obsolete, barbaric practice up there with bloodletting and leeches.

So farking give it up already, and let the world go kicking and screaming beyond the nineteenth goddamn century.

People who think that the red liquid seeping out of a rare steak is "blood" are morons.

Really? How many other intramuscular bodily fluids do mammals have that are red?This isn't 20,000 BC. Cook your damn food.

It's a good idea to try to avoid using your own ignorance as a point of argument. I occasionally consume raw beef and often consume several types of raw fish, none of which are bleeding. The red liquid in a raw steak is a mixture of a protein called "myoglobin" and, mostly, water.

I don't consume raw milk. I have, when I lived on a farm. From the tank to my refrigerator, it went bad in less than 48 hours. Tasted great until then, though.

Carth:t3knomanser: Carth: Around 200 people got sick from raw milk/cheese in 2002

Raw numbers are meaningless without context. Raw milk is not sold in the same volumes as processed milk.

It is legal in 28 states and just about all of Europe. 9.7 million people in the US regularly drink raw milk (if that helps put the 200 in context for you) .

Considering the level of illness in France, where raw milk and cheese are so common and you can actually but it from vending machines, is incredibly low I don't see why the US would be very different.

Europe's food supply chain is inherently safer than the US. The US supply chain, as regulated by the USDA and FDA, is based upon the principle that all food will be properly processed and stabilized before being consumed. You can dump raw eggs all over raw hamburger in Europe and nobody would bat an eye. In the US, that is like playing Russian roulette with your guts. The regulatory standards here are built around factory farms and large processing plants, not small craft farms. You can't have two sets of standards in one marketplace so we have to go with the one that is geared toward the dangerous players who provide the bulk of the food, not the craft farmers who may be able to provide safer food. In other words, if you want to eat like that you either have to form your own self-contained food supply or go somewhere that isn't dominated by the same industrial approach to food that we have in the US. Any exceptions to the food safety rules would be exploited by major players and result in massive outbreaks of food borne illnesses. You know that, I know that, and anyone with a brain knows that. You can't write exceptions to the laws without allowing the major players to exploit those rules, because they buy the legislation in the first place. It will be introduced by industry shills in Congress and pass because the major players are already setting up the infrastructure to take advantage of it to capture more market share. And on the local level they will force property sales to their subsidiaries by introducing zoning restrictions requiring massive capital investments, with no grandfathering clause (but they will give you 3 years to make the required changes before you are shut down). It is trivially easy to do the local market takeovers, actually, especially on something like this because it won't be high profile. It will be like that insurance company that is forcing the battered women's shelter in Cincinnati to sell to them, despite the location being the best suited for women to reach. Or they could do it through eminent domain, buying the cooperation of the local authorities to hand them the land as I saw in Indianapolis several times.

George Carlin was right about us having owners and the only way to have any chance at some veneer of safety is to not give them loopholes or exemptions to exploit. Otherwise we become China.

Surpheon:but in a country where buying cigarettes is legal I have qualms about making it illegal

Cigarettes aren't part of our food supply. One of the goals of the FDA is to ensure that everything sold as food is safe to eat. Note: not healthy. The FDA does not guarantee the healthfulness of our food supply, only its safety. This means putting policies and procedures in place which prevent food-borne illness. Pasteurization is a simple process which has a big impact on food-borne illness.

Now, aged raw milk cheese- that's where it's at. The cultures use to make it into cheese basically kill off the same cultures as pasteurization.

awalkingecho:Alternatively we can get around to accepting the fact that we're the only species who utilizes the milk of a mammal that isn't our own and that it's not natural, and just stop drinking EITHER.

That works too.

We're also the only species to drive cars and that's not natural so let's stop. Oh and forget the internet. No other animal has that so let's just shut it down.

Metalupis:Somaticasual: Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

Really glad this was the Weeners

It could be in the weeners all day 'erry day, for all the good it does in the real world. When it comes to food, "If I've never gotten sick off of it, it's 100% awesome and good and stop taking away muh freedoms". Or at least that's the response I get from my fellow Wisconsinites.

The FDA has a right to its opinion and its findings should be taken under advisement.People should still have the right to disregard that opinion.

"Opinion?" What you have is an "opinion". What they have is "science". Unless you're a "scientist" who specializes in food borne pathogens and disease, an "opinion" is all it will be.Me, I tend to believe in science, and don't get my panties in a knot because the scientists happen to work for the US government.People don't have the right to strain our overburdened medical system and spread disease amongst the rest of the populace because of an "opinion".

SirMadness:So farking give it up already, and let the world go kicking and screaming beyond the nineteenth goddamn century.

From what I've been reading here many of these folks don't really give a rat's ass about the "nutritional value", but about their irrational distrust of the "guvmint".

From the link: "In an email to Food Safety News, Bartlett said that what surprised him the most about the results of the survey of raw-milk drinkers was that such a small percentage of them trusted public health officials regarding what food is safe to eat."

Playing craps with your health because you thing this "pasteurization" thing is an evil guvmint conspiracy? Maybe we should let these people drink all the raw milk they want. Feed it to their kids too. That would clean the gene pool up PDQ.

Somaticasual:Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

What you don't understand is the advances that have been made in the areas of herd health and almost instant detection of pathogens in raw milk. In Pasteur's day, humans didn't understand the links between bovine and human tuberculosis, for example. Bovine tuberculosis has been virtually eradicated in dairy herds. In Pasteur's day, milking was done in open buckets which allowed for contamination from a variety of sources. In modern day milking parlors, the milk is drawn directly from the cow into a closed system.

If you don't want to drink raw milk, don't. But don't try to use information and practices from 100 years ago to ridicule those who do.

Carth:I had to have my wife translate for me (she's the french one) but we usually get our milk/cheese from Fromagerie Pascal Beillevaire. It was yellow capped and labeled Lait Cru so I'm assuming it is raw.

My mouth is watering now just thinking about the cheeses.

Congrats you got it straight from the producter and it is the only way and extremely rare. Lots of friends in Franche-Comte, the Alps, Normandy and Brittany, and you really can't find it in very many places.

As soon as I switched to raw milk, it was pretty clear my body was getting better. I started vomiting and shiatting out all the stuff from the milk products I'd been drinking for decades. I've lost 60 pounds in just 4 weeks, and I've been saving a lot of gas money because I'm too sick to go anywhere! These Monsanto creeps and their Pasteurized Milk are the same idiots who keep trying to get us to use vaccines and antibiotics. Anyone who's been on the caveman diet knows that the human body only naturally processes meat and creek water. Next you'll be trying to get people to drink out of city water lines.

awalkingecho:I'm not sure either of those things require enzymes most of our bodies weren't equipped for.

As one of the third of humanity who evolved to properly digest cows milk throughout my life, it would be insulting mother nature to ignore such a clear and explicit evolutionary dietary dictate. The rapidity with which the lactese mutation has spread makes nature's verdict on humans drinking milk unequivocal: just do it.

SumoJeb:In the states why wouldn't a waiver stating that the consumer assumes the risks related to the product be more than enough? Some hippy wants dirty milk? Sure, but they assume the risks and waive their right to sue for the foreseeable health problems associated with the product.

Imagine a scenario where a head-of-household consumes raw milk, gets sick and then dies. Add to that scenario a wife, several young children and little-to-no medical or life insurance. So the wife is left with unpaid medical bills and an insufficient amount of income. Guess who now qualifies for food stamps and welfare that the rest of Wisconsin gets to pay for? Or you can waive their right for public assistance since dad was an idiot. So now you have a family on the street with all of the social ills that go along with it.

We're no longer in an age where Darwin gets to throw chlorine into the gene pool of the entire family. So it is in the interest of society that you don't completely screw the pooch by being a retard, thereby screwing things up for the rest of us.

Somaticasual:chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.

Raw milk is pointless and pretty stupid to seek out, but in a country where buying cigarettes is legal I have qualms about making it illegal. Put suitably large and dire warnings on it, charge taxes similar to tobacco 'sin taxes' to pay for the added burden of illnesses on society, and I would probably be OK with it existing.

(I do like organic milk - organic isn't always worth it, but in this case fewer antibiotics and hormones appeals to me.)

Somaticasual:Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

I can't believe people are stupid enough to not know this. I mean, its like boiling contaminated water. This is basic.

Carth:The risks really aren't as great as some people claim. Around 200 people got sick from raw milk/cheese in 2002 (last year i could find data for) most at risk are kids and immunocompromised. When you consider 48 million people in the US every year have some foodborne illness it seems foolish so many states regulate raw cheese/milk

I think I would have voted about how the jury did too, and I think the guy should get probation instead of jail or a big fine, but its hard to bring out the "only 200 people got sick" thing as an argument for legalization when a major reason only 200 people got sick from it is its illegality.

Carth:It is water and myoglobin.You cook you food. Steak tartare is delicious.

MadAzza:The red liquid in a raw steak is a mixture of a protein called "myoglobin" and, mostly, water..

Myoglobin comes from damaged muscle tissue. It is a byproduct of blood, part of the oxygen carrying protein chain that gets O2 to muscle fibers. That's why the term "-globin" is in the name. It is used as the muscle works as an O2 supply before the rest of the bloodstream gets into gear during exertion.Blood or blood related compounds should not be leaking from food as you eat it, unless you happen to live in the tiger cage at your local zoo. That's extremely nasty.

Pockafrusta:Grew up drinking raw milk, eating fresh eggs and canning most of our veggies from the garden... Still kickin after 42 years.

The problem is not when you are milking your own cow, the problem comes from the industrialization of the process. The poisoning doesn't come from the milk it comes from the fact the udders are below the anus. The milk can be safe with the right precautions, but you really need to know the source.

toraque:Sim Tree: I severly headshake at the raw milk bufoonery; given that, I still beleive that the guy deserves a fair trial. I don't sit well with the idea that a judge can ban him from raising any sort of defense.

I think for a crime of this magnitude, a severe headshake alone won't do it. You'll need at least a finger waggle and a harrumph.

Or you could take California's route, and set bail at $1,000,000.

You know, the state that has to let murderers out because of overcrowding...

Mister Peejay:HK-MP5-SD: I would just like to point out that raw milk can be rendered perfectly safe by the simple expedient of adding ample quantities of Kahlua and Vodka. Out of an abundance of caution I also treat all my store bought milk this way, just incase some evil dairy farmer slipped raw milk passed the inspectors.

What if you find Kahlua and/or milk to be disgusting?

/in fact, forget the theme park

Well, I am pretty sure if you leave out the Kahlua and milk, and just drink the vodka you will be fairly safe from the pathogens often found in raw milk. If you want to be safe you should continue to drink it until your Blood Alcohol Content or "BAC" reaches the point where bacteria cannot survive in your bloodstream. Once again, out of an abundance of caution, I also try to do this once a week, generally Friday or Saturday night. You can't be too careful about this raw milk shiat. It will sneak up on you and kill you if let your guard down.

Carth:Imagine a scenario where the head of household gets drunk and dies, smokes cigarettes an dies, eats a raw hamburger and dies, eats undercooked poultry and dies, eats too much fast food and dies...

Everything you brought up is regulated and/or discouraged by the government in some way. Kids aren't allowed to drink or smoke and are discouraged from fast food. Drinking and smoking are banned in many public areas. Public intoxication and driving while intoxicated are illegal Most of the meat I purchase from the store include hygiene warnings and recommendations on safe cooking. Fast food restaurants are increasingly banned from using trans fats and are increasingly required to post caloric information.

Try again.

pedrop357:I guess he can forget about that hiking trip he had planned, and no more sky diving. He's the head of a household and the government is authorized to curtail his freedom so that he continues to provide for his family.

Now we have a legitimate argument showing the slippery slope to nanny statedom and a real life version of I, Robot. And you're right, the government could come in and place limits on hiking in the name of safety. They can always take it farther and farther.

But IMHO, I would guess that the driving motivator of curtailed access to hiking would come less from a desire to save peoples' lives because of little Billy not growing up without a father and would more likely come from a desire to stop getting sued. For some reason, people think that just because the government plots a trail through the wilderness that the government suddenly needs it to confirm to ADA safety regulations. Because when somebody hurts themselves from a wash-out, falling ice/rocks or aggressive animals, Uncle Sam should have posted signs every 10' warning them.

It is also worth noting that for the US there were 1,414 illnesses, 80 hospitalizations, and 0 deaths attributed to raw milk between 1998 and 2010. Pizza was responsible for 1,614 illnesses, 20 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths during the same time frame.

I would just like to point out that raw milk can be rendered perfectly safe by the simple expedient of adding ample quantities of Kahlua and Vodka. Out of an abundance of caution I also treat all my store bought milk this way, just incase some evil dairy farmer slipped raw milk passed the inspectors.

Raw milk is generally safe IF handled properly and IF the conditions are sanitary. The issue is that factory farming makes the right conditions impossible.

I drink raw milk, but it comes from my animals. I'm not going to trust Joe Blow to wash his hands and keep his barn and equipment clean enough. I've seen people wash up, rub their nose and go right to work. Uhm, no. That's not sanitary.

awalkingecho:Alternatively we can get around to accepting the fact that we're the only species who utilizes the milk of a mammal that isn't our own and that it's not natural, and just stop drinking EITHER.

BolloxReader:There are wild animals who have been caught drinking milk from the teats of domesticated animals like goats and dairy cows. The only reason why no other animals do this is because they don't have the intelligence to systematically keep other animals lactating past the weaning of their young.

The proper evolutionary development for a mammal is to develop lactose intolerance as it ages. This is part of the weaning process. If there were no weaning process you'd have some pretty screwed up herds of animals with each sibling continuing to suckle through adulthood, and its siblings suckling it.

So we can agree that bringing up the delivery method of the milk is just emotional bullshiat thrown in that doesn't relate to the argument, good.

BolloxReader:And your basic point is erroneous as well. There are wild animals who have been caught drinking milk from the teats of domesticated animals like goats and dairy cows. The only reason why no other animals do this is because they don't have the intelligence to systematically keep other animals lactating past the weaning of their young. We adapt the world to suit our needs, from domesticating other animals and plants to reshaping the landscape. And we do so because we are naturally evolved to do so.nHumans can't digest milk on their own, yet many of us have gut bacteria specifically evolved to help us digest it. That by itself shows that it is indeed natural. We have co-evolved with other species to be able to drink it. Why do you hate our natural intestinal flora and fauna? Why do you hate what we naturally have become and try to make us into something that we are not?

awalkingecho:Alternatively we can get around to accepting the fact that we're the only species who utilizes the milk of a mammal that isn't our own and that it's not natural, and just stop drinking EITHER.

That works too.

Hint: Humans are a part of nature, and hence by definition anything we do is natural.And your basic point is erroneous as well. There are wild animals who have been caught drinking milk from the teats of domesticated animals like goats and dairy cows. The only reason why no other animals do this is because they don't have the intelligence to systematically keep other animals lactating past the weaning of their young. We adapt the world to suit our needs, from domesticating other animals and plants to reshaping the landscape. And we do so because we are naturally evolved to do so.nHumans can't digest milk on their own, yet many of us have gut bacteria specifically evolved to help us digest it. That by itself shows that it is indeed natural. We have co-evolved with other species to be able to drink it. Why do you hate our natural intestinal flora and fauna? Why do you hate what we naturally have become and try to make us into something that we are not?

awalkingecho:Surpheon: he rapidity with which the lactese mutation has spread makes nature's verdict on humans drinking milk unequivocal: just do it.

I'm not sure if you understand genetics, but if you HAVE the intolerance, drinking it doesn't make it magically go away. So no. Don't 'just do it.'

"As one of the third of humanity who evolved to properly digest cows milk throughout my life, it would be insulting mother nature to ignore such a clear and explicit evolutionary dietary dictate. The rapidity with which the lactese mutation has spread makes nature's verdict on humans drinking milk unequivocal: just do it."

Dinjiin:SumoJeb: In the states why wouldn't a waiver stating that the consumer assumes the risks related to the product be more than enough? Some hippy wants dirty milk? Sure, but they assume the risks and waive their right to sue for the foreseeable health problems associated with the product.

Imagine a scenario where a head-of-household consumes raw milk, gets sick and then dies. Add to that scenario a wife, several young children and little-to-no medical or life insurance. So the wife is left with unpaid medical bills and an insufficient amount of income. Guess who now qualifies for food stamps and welfare that the rest of Wisconsin gets to pay for? Or you can waive their right for public assistance since dad was an idiot. So now you have a family on the street with all of the social ills that go along with it.

We're no longer in an age where Darwin gets to throw chlorine into the gene pool of the entire family. So it is in the interest of society that you don't completely screw the pooch by being a retard, thereby screwing things up for the rest of us.

Imagine a scenario where the head of household gets drunk and dies, smokes cigarettes an dies, eats a raw hamburger and dies, eats undercooked poultry and dies, eats too much fast food and dies...

Do you really want to ban everything that is unhealthy and may lead to increased medical costs? Why do you choose raw milk, something very few people actually get sick from an almost no healthy adult dies, to draw the line?

Mentalpatient87:We're the only species that does a lot of things. Should we stop using toothpaste and automobiles, too? It's so unnatural!

Neither of those things are ingested. Toothpaste in most of its commercial forms is a grey area, as little is swallowed, though I'd still just as soon a natural alternative.

There's a big difference between luxuries and advancements we've made from intelligence and the use of tools, and sucking on the teat of something that most people in the world have an intolerance to in some degree or another.

If it would only be about people poisoning themselves, I wouldn't really care. But what's to stop an unscrupulous milk producer from mixing in a little raw milk to save the pasteurization costs? Or someone who sells a dairy-based item from a roadside stand forgetting to mention that they used raw milk.

Unless we can trust everyone in the product chain - and let's be honest, we know we can't - you have to stop it at the suppliers to keep things safe.

Raw milk sells for a very significant price premium it would be very stupid to "mix it in" with already pasteurized milk. Also since it has a very limited shelf life you'd notice pretty quick if you got it instead of factory milk.

Carth:If you've never had raw milk before you're missing out. The stuff tastes delicious and will make normal store bought milk seem undrinkable after a few weeks.

I have had raw milk in my wild and crazy days. It tasted similar to pasture fed milk I had from the same state. Certainly better than factory farm mass production stuff, but I have never been able to taste any difference from pasteurized product *that comes from equivalently treated and fed cows*. I've found that diet and stress are the big taste impacts, not proper pasteurization.

If it would only be about people poisoning themselves, I wouldn't really care. But what's to stop an unscrupulous milk producer from mixing in a little raw milk to save the pasteurization costs? Or someone who sells a dairy-based item from a roadside stand forgetting to mention that they used raw milk.

Unless we can trust everyone in the product chain - and let's be honest, we know we can't - you have to stop it at the suppliers to keep things safe.

Somaticasual:Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

Somaticasual:Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.

I can understand that, raw milk is less safe than pasterized.

I can also understand the appeal of raw milk and the desire to eat food that is as unprocessed/pure/unfarked-with as possible. (I don't quite go for raw milk, but organic unhomogenized milk from grass-fed cows is close enough for me, and perfectly legal)

Maybe this is a place where the leftist hippies and the right-wing randroids can agree for once, let the free market handle it. If people want to drink it, knowing fully understanding the risks, then let them. Just make sure that the farmers are immune from liability from that risk.

I could see Canada clamping down on raw milk or other fairly unsafe food products since the government pays a significant portion of the populations medical expenses. In the states why wouldn't a waiver stating that the consumer assumes the risks related to the product be more than enough? Some hippy wants dirty milk? Sure, but they assume the risks and waive their right to sue for the foreseeable health problems associated with the product. Let the insurance companies decide if they cover sickness caused by negligence. Hospitals will make cash from the sick hippies and employers can fire sick milk drinkers for missing work .

Somaticasual:Folks, you can chance raw milk if you really want to feel different or ultra-organic.But really - there's a very good reason pasteurization was a breakthrough: people dying or getting ridiculously sick from illnesses caused by, wait for it - raw milk. The FDA didn't ban its sale to piss off the hippies - it banned it in the interest of public health.